Sierra and Radical Entertainment remove multiplayer from Prototype

by Griffin McElroy { Mar 29th 2008 at 3:00PM }

Those who harbored desires to go on Crackdown-esque romps through New York City with a genetically mutated pal will undoubtedly be crushed to learn that developer Radical Entertainment and publisher Sierra have decided to scrap Prototype's multiplayer mode in order to encourage players to truly delve into the single-player storyline, and, more truthfully, so they could meet their original Fall 2008 launch window.

Radical's Tim Bennison defended the decision in an interview with TeamXbox, hinting at a possibility of co-op functionality in post-release DLC, and confirming that "multiplayer will definitely be on the table from the start" when, should the game be well-received, it comes time for a sequel -- which we can only guess will be titled Reference Design, followed by the critically acclaimed Initial Model, and then the action-packed conclusion, Finished Product.

Tags: co-op, multiplayer, prototype, radical, radicalentertainment, sierra, singleplayer, teamxbox

Related From Joystiq

Report: Splinter Cell: Conviction to have co-op, new multiplayer mode
1 day ago
Review: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
21 days ago
'What is Treadstone?' A multiplayer Bourne sequel, apparently
487 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Huey2k2 @ Mar 29th 2008 3:07PM

Fucking Christ. I was looking forward to online co-op on this too... Now I just don't know if I'll even get it...

MortifiedocAlot @ Apr 3rd 2008 10:02PM

"You know... games don't NEED multiplayer to survive. There's entirely too much focus nowadays on that aspect instead of building a strong singleplayer. Take, for example, Crackdown."

THANK YOU. People just focus on multiplayer and lol achievements rather than story and gameplay.

J-Boogie @ Mar 29th 2008 3:08PM

It was gonna have multiplayer? Huh, first I heard of it. Ah well.

Still got Mercenaries 2! ... where the heck *is* that game, anyway?

Sora267 @ Mar 29th 2008 3:16PM

"more truthfully, so they could meet their original Fall 2008 launch window."

And most truthfully, so their devs could have weekends and Friday evenings off.

Hashbrown_Hunter @ Mar 29th 2008 3:24PM

Exactly. Why cheap out on a product that holds this much potential? The lack of any kind of multiplayer out of the box will kill the purchase for most people.

Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Mar 29th 2008 3:37PM

You know... games don't NEED multiplayer to survive. There's entirely too much focus nowadays on that aspect instead of building a strong singleplayer. Take, for example, Crackdown.

Hashbrown_Hunter @ Mar 29th 2008 3:49PM

Thats true, but co-op/multiplayer is expected in most games, especially in sandbox games ever since Saint's Row and Crackdown. The fact that they decided to put such an important feature on hold is disappointing to those of us who have had a taste of how good sandbox games can be when you're destroying stuff alongside a friend.

Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Mar 29th 2008 3:54PM

And I counter that arguement in the simple fact that EVERYTIME I did the coop in sandbox games, it usually degrades into deathmatch with casualties on the sidelines. So you talk about this great excellent experience and I think 2 player warhawk or frontlines.

Vidikron (FU) @ Mar 29th 2008 4:13PM

Sounds like you need different friends, Wong. Sure, there were a few times by friends ended up in a rocket fight in Crackdown... but that IS fun... but we also spent a lot of time getting bosses, collecting orbs, and trying to get various achievements And I'm not sure you can blame Crackdown's lack of objectives beyond the bosses on the inclusion of co-op. I suppose you can speculate that that was the reason, but there's clearly no direct correlation. Say what you want, but I had an absolute blast playing Crackdown in co-op.

MarkHawk @ Mar 29th 2008 4:30PM

In response to Sir.

I'll agree that 90% of the games I dove into this holiday season were Single player based. Portal, Half Life, Skate, Call of Duty 4, BioShock. They were great, especially Bioshock. The thing is these games took up a majority of my game time. I really didn't have much time for games with school and work let alone online multiplayer. Call of Duty 4 would of been great to hop onto for some online coop missions. Maybe playing as the Russian allies you sometimes have. The thing is though, while I agree games do not need online multiplayer to survive I often get lost from this online experience with my friends. Playing a game that puts me side by side with my brothers or friends back home on the east sides keeps us connected. It's fun to have that element. It sucks to have it ripped away.

Mr Khan @ Mar 29th 2008 6:19PM

I agree with Fidlious

The slow death of single player needs to stop

Vidikron (FU) @ Mar 30th 2008 1:59AM

@Mr Khan

I don't consider co-op to be the death of single player, I think it breathes new life into it. I think it should be regarded differently than straight VS multiplayer.

Drago Dracini @ Mar 29th 2008 3:40PM

T.T This makes me very sad... But I'll still buy it cause it looks amazing... I would still have done the story in co-oip, just would have eben more fun.

BigD145 @ Mar 29th 2008 3:39PM

If they make multiplayer into a patch later on they'll get some better long term sales.

MarkHawk @ Mar 29th 2008 4:34PM

I'd disagree for this reason.

When I purchase games I purchase them often used because I simply can not afford new on a college budget. The only time I purchase them new is if its the first 2-3 weeks since launch. I doubt many people are going to run out and buy a new copy months after launch when they could get a used copy for 30% off the new copy. Not only that if I have to PAY for the coop feature through XBL market place then I seriously doubt more people are going to buy it new.

Any word if the Multiplayer will cost more? It would suck to buy the game and 3 months later have a "Gold" edition come out with multiplayer but orignal owners have to upgrade.

BigD145 @ Mar 29th 2008 6:44PM

Gold versions with extras are done all the time. Many times the Gold version is merely the same game after a few patches. Multiplayer aught to be a free patch sometime down the road if they want to focus on the single player experience and hold to the deadline.

Chase @ Mar 29th 2008 3:54PM

*waits for them to charge 800 points for multiplayer*

ApolloIV @ Mar 29th 2008 4:07PM

I'm very interested in this game, I still have plans on buying it.

jrhawk42 @ Mar 29th 2008 4:39PM

Well I guess that's good news since I probably won't buy this game now.

Brucie B @ Mar 29th 2008 4:41PM

LAME, Have fun with that...

refinedsugar @ Mar 29th 2008 5:46PM

"and, more truthfully,"

Quote of the day right there folks.

Raide @ Mar 29th 2008 5:49PM

I don't understand why Multiplayer is a critical aspect of a videogame. When you're playing the story mode, it's to play through the story and have a good time. If you're so socially inept that you absolutely need to have a multiplayer component in your game, why not simply play Call of Duty, GRAW, Rainbow Six, or the metric tonne of other 360 games to feature such a component? Or better yet, if you really desire such social interaction, go outside and play a sport. Or perhaps go to the movies with friends. Or the mall. Or get together and have fun with whatever hobby you all enjoy.

Seriously, this isn't the end of the world. I'd rather take a lengthy, stellar single player experience without multiplayer than a rather contrived, dopey single player experience with multiplayer. Of course, this all depends on the kind of games you like to play. Some of us don't have a problem getting past a Level 50 boss by ourselves.

Mr Khan @ Mar 29th 2008 6:21PM

Maybe they just should've went with a Smash-bros-esque solution by giving you what is essentially a gimped multiplayer experience unless you move through single player and accomplish enough to show your mastery of the other modes

Would've pissed off a lot of people, but significantly fewer then they'll probably piss off with this measure

DaMan09 @ Mar 30th 2008 12:02AM

Alright dude, everything is gunna be all right.

Anticrawl @ Mar 29th 2008 6:48PM

*Crosses Prototype off his long list of games to buy in 08 and his wallet sighes in relief*

Sorry Prototype but you really won't be missed, ahh what could have been.

Mills and Boom @ Mar 29th 2008 7:05PM

TBH I never heard of the game so I don't care.

mnemo @ Mar 29th 2008 7:29PM

Laaaaaaaaaaaaame. And as for multiplayer via DLC ... never happened for Guitar Hero II and sure as hell won't happen for Prototype. Mark my words.

Jayslacks @ Mar 29th 2008 8:42PM

I'm happy that a dev team can make a decision for the betterment of the game, not just for sales. I'd rather play a good game than an alright game that could have been better...

tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 29th 2008 9:01PM

good i'm glad they did it. I'm sick and tired of every fucking game that comes out absolutely HAS to have multiplayer to appease the 10 year old ADD rittled halo addicts who don't know how to play games by themselves.

Now they should be able to make that game look and probably play better, cause the last gameplay demonstration the background looked like it was ripped from early PS2 games.

Anticrawl @ Mar 29th 2008 9:25PM

Some people are just social gamers. I've been playing games with a friend or my dad/mom since the 80s and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I just find it hard to bring myself to play through the singleplayer of a game without a buddy unless it is really really fucking good.

LemonJoose @ Mar 29th 2008 9:35PM

Well I'm sure since they're not including a huge game component like multiplayer/co-op, they'll be reducing the price of the game accordingly, to say $40 instead of $60, right?

Capgun @ Mar 29th 2008 10:17PM

Well, This just dropped off my "Must buy" list. Dont get me wrong, Singleplayer is awesome, Bioshock is one of my favorite games of all time. But I rented that, beat it in a week,and returned it. Why? No reason to purchase it, with little to no replay value present.

On the other hand, I purchased Crackdown(mainly because of the H3 beta, but thats not the point) and I still go back and play it with a buddy every so often. I've easily killed 6 hours with him, just goofin around. I was talking to this same buddy about the potential in this when they said there would be COOP. We're both pissed, needless to say.

This might get a rent, but it certainly aint a buy anymore. Sorry Radical, You guys screwed up this time.

Punx @ Mar 29th 2008 11:43PM

wtf this game looks soooo fucking sick now they are taking the multiplayer out are those game developers on crack... god obvisloy you shouldnt be developing games if you cant see the way of the future is MULTIPLAYER!

mocax @ Mar 29th 2008 11:57PM

Couple of weeks before release: "We've decided to take the AI out so that the maintstream gamers will find the game easier to play. And players can concentrate on the story telling without getting distracted by enemy fire."

JW @ Mar 30th 2008 2:09AM

They are only hurting themselves with this decision. The fall line-up is already chalked full of some of the most anticipated games this year, such as Gears 2, KillZone2, Resistance 2, Fallout 3 and Fracture to name a few. Their decision just put this game on my "must get" list to my "if I get around to it" list.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the story will be outstanding. However, with it's competition offering many different forms of multiplayer in arenas that we are both familiar with and excited about, I don't see how they can afford to press forward with this decision. I honestly do not know how they can expect anyone to actually buy into the logic that they want the player to delve into the story more when all most people want is to play these games with friends and family. Apparently, they like playing games by themselves in a dark corner somewhere where friends and socialization is overrated.

Good call, guys. Keep up that progressive way of thinking.